by Lance T. Izumi, Fellow in California Studies
Pacific Research Institute
March 7, 2000

Announcer lead: Time for Perspectives. Lance Izumi says that proposals to increase per-pupil spending are fraught with problems.

In national rankings, California places low in per-pupil spending. Thus, raising state per-pupil spending to the national average is the current education reform "du jour." Both Democrats and Republicans in the State Legislature have proposals in the works. The California Teachers Association is gathering signatures for an initiative for the November ballot that will mandate an increase in state per-pupil spending. While such proposals are tempting, they are also fraught with serious problems.

First of all, the per-pupil spending figure most often used by state officials and cited in the media is misleading. This figure counts money from the state's General Fund budget and from local property taxes. Using this counting method, the state will spend just over $6,000 per pupil in the current fiscal year. It is this figure that is used for national ranking purposes and which is significantly under the national average. However, this figure doesn't count the large spending contributions from the federal government, the state lottery, and other state and local funds. According to a just-released study by the Pacific Research Institute, if all education revenues are counted, the state actually spends almost $8,000 per pupil. Because of this discrepency, the state Legislative Analyst's Office says there is wide disagreement about how to calculate per-pupil spending figures and whether the national rankings tell a complete story.

More important, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office, is the fact that simply increasing per-pupil spending will not guarantee improved student performance. The Analyst's Office warns that education spending measures what goes into the educational process, not what results from it. Indeed, students in many high-spending school districts, such as the Sausalito elementary school district which spends $16,500 per pupil, score low on state tests. The Analyst's Office recommends that the state be concerned more with how its students perform rather than on how state spending compares with other states.

That's good advice. Hopefully, our elected officials will heed it.

With a perspective, I'm Lance Izumi.